Skip to content


Palaniakkal Vs. Ramana Koundan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.695
AppellantPalaniakkal
RespondentRamana Koundan and anr.
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--status. - .....this evidence stands unrebutted. on these facts there can be no doubt that the parties became divided in status. we must, therefore, set aside the decrees of the courts below and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the property as sued for with mesne profits at the rate of rs. 125 a year as found by the munsif for one year before the date of suit and for subsequent mesne profits at the same rate till delivery or 8 years from this date.2. the plaintiff is entitled to costs throughout.
Judgment:

1. The Subordinate Judge finds that the two brothers became divided in so far as their money dealings were concerned. He also finds that for 13 years previous to suit the two brothers resided in separate houses and messed separately. The lands were not divided by metes and bounds but they were cultivated jointly, and the produce was equally divided and the kist was also paid in halves. This evidence stands unrebutted. On these facts there can be no doubt that the parties became divided in status. We must, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the property as sued for with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 125 a year as found by the Munsif for one year before the date of suit and for subsequent mesne profits at the same rate till delivery or 8 years from this date.

2. The plaintiff is entitled to costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //